Just read the 100-page hit piece on Dehlin . . .

[_Kevin Graham]

Kevin Graham, now a raving, narcissistic madman dedicated solely to the personal ad hominem vilification and destruction of anyone and anyone who finds fault with his fantastic calumnies and gangreneish "scholarship," and having apparently no life worth living outside of his own project of publicly defaming, soiling, and defecating on the Church, its teachings, and its people, provides us with another eye-bulging foray into the churning cauldron that is what's left of his mind.

What you're saying about Kevin can be proven to be empirically wrong, opening you up to a libel lawsuit. Is that what you want, Droopy? You've already shown that you approve of using legal threats in an effort to shut people up.

It must be nice to sit around day after day, ruminating on the various ways you might get revenge, with no need to go out and earn a paycheck.

Oh leave poor Loran alone. All he has left in this world is his rhetoric and his thesaurus. Let him have at it.

[_Doctor Scratch]

What you're saying about Kevin can be proven to be empirically wrong,

No, it can't, unless he's a victim of an organic mental illness, which he's not. He's still a raving, narcissistic madman, which I could prove by mining the archives of MDD and this forum over the last several years, but my opinion of Graham - and opinion's are not actionable - is that he's unhinged, that is, he's a very wicked, destructive, and toxic person, but not insane.

Oh, "opinion's are not actionable"? So if I say that, in my opinion, you've "never really worked," you'll just have to suck eggs? Interesting.

This won't help you, Scratch. You've made clear, empirical claims about my past - not my internal mental states - that are either true or not.

Have I? Can you cite them? I bet you can't.

And, you claim to have received it from someone on this board who has intimate knowledge of my life since at least 16 years of age.

Where have I ever claimed any such thing?

Let's bring that out into the open.

Yes, let's. Start by citing the passage where I claimed that someone had "intimate knowledge of your life since at least 16 years of age."

You've already shown that you approve of using legal threats in an effort to shut people up.

Oh yes, to shut people up you are lying about actual, historical events or conditions for the purpose of pubic defamation.

"Public defamation"? What, the folks here at MDB are somehow going to have a lower opinion of you? Is that really what you think?

It must be nice to sit around day after day, ruminating on the various ways you might get revenge, with no need to go out and earn a paycheck.

It must be even nicer to throw bowling balls at passing cars from an overpass and then run away and hide when you see the impact. It must also be nice to lie and fabricate with impunity behind your screen name about people who are not protected by such.

It's not "throw[ing] bowling balls" to inquire into the truth, Droopy. Your behavior on this matter has been remarkably strange.

[_Kevin Graham]

So according to Loran Blood, General Authority President Samuelson is a useful idiot.

CFR that Samuelson has ever seen Smith's piece, or, if he has, that he would have ever taken the position on it Dehlin and his sycophants claim.

CFR that Samuelson has never seen Smith's piece. Funny how you never required a CFR for that one, huh? We have inside sources claiming he has read at least portions of it, whereas all you have is Dan and Bill's speculation that he has read none of it. Remember, this irrelevant sidebar issue was raised by Dan and Bill who insisted it was an important point to make. Now they are backtracking, admitting they could be mistaken. That speaks volumes in and of itself. It proves they are willing to lie if they think they can get away with it. A typical tactic used by apologists, but perfected by folks like Schryver.

It was important for them to lie about this because they suspected no one was going to come forward and prove them wrong. Now that they have, they are retreating from their original stance. Dan Peterson is a liar and a charlatan and deserves to be exposed. No wonder he was fired!

[_Droopy]

Oh leave poor Loran alone. All he has left in this world is his rhetoric and his thesaurus. Let him have at it.

I've also got a fantastic collection of Japanese science fiction films from the golden age to the present - the original Godzilla, Rodan, Varan, Space Amoeba, Space Monster Dagora, The Mysterions, The H-Man, The Manster, Mothra, Frankenstein Conquers the World etc., and almost everything up to Godzilla: Final Wars, which I really didn't like much (and got rid of). I've also got a collection of Hong Kong martial arts films, from the late sixties through the Hong Kong New Wave of the eighties that's, like, outta sight.

Life's good.

[_Kevin Graham]

Oh leave poor Loran alone. All he has left in this world is his rhetoric and his thesaurus. Let him have at it.

I've also got a fantastic collection of Japanese science fiction films from the golden age to the present - the original Godzilla, Rodan, Varan, Space Amoeba, Space Monster Dagora, The Mysterions, The H-Man, The Manster, Mothra, Frankenstein Conquers the World etc., and almost everything up to Godzilla: Final Wars, which I really didn't like much (and got rid of). I've also got a collection of Hong Kong martial arts films, from the late sixties through the Hong Kong New Wave of the eighties that's, like, outta sight.

Life's good.

What about Space Giants or Spectraman?

[_Droopy]

CFR that Samuelson has never seen Smith's piece.

Yes, let's have some evidence or documentary facts that he ever set eyes upon the text, or, if he did, that he didn't think it was the cat's pajamas.

Something more, in other words, than John Dehlin's stories.

We have inside sources claiming he has read at least portions of it, whereas all you have is Dan and Bill's speculation that he has read none of it.

Let's translate that out of exmospeak into standard English: I have Dan and Bill's speculation that he did not see it, and you have unnamed, unsourced "deep throats" within the Church who claim that he has.

Speculation vs. speculation.

I also have the quite reasonable proposition that no GA alive would assist a public, active apostate who's core mission is to:

1. Facilitate exist from the Church

2. Facilitate a secularized, apostate perspective of the Church's truth claims and divine authority while remaining technically within it.

Its bizarre, Kevin, but then, much of the post-Mormon intellectual and psychological world is certifiable.

Remember, this irrelevant sidebar issue was raised by Dan and Bill who insisted it was an important point to make. Now they are backtracking, admitting they could be mistaken. That speaks volumes in and of itself. It proves they are willing to lie if they think they can get away with it. A typical tactic used by apologists, but perfected by folks like Schryver.

No one's lying except you. Link me to the Smith paper, so I can see the "attack dog" tone and content. Show me a speck of actual evidence that Samualsen had the slightest thing to do with any of this.

Put your eyes back in your head and cough up either some logical argument that would permit us to believe that a GA would turn against the church and support the work of a secularist critic of the Church who supports homosexual marriage, radical feminism, and a vision of the church in which the church is just one more religious belief system among many, with no significant claim to the minds and hearts of human beings above any other, or documentary evidence that all objective observers could agree on.

Dan Peterson is a liar and a charlatan and deserves to be exposed. No wonder he was fired!

I could mine the archives of MDD and this board going back years for quotations just like this and it would be bigger than both volumes of Charlesworth's The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.

[_Droopy]

What about Space Giants or Spectraman?

If you mean the Johnny Sokko series, I couldn't stand it.

The original Ultraman series is fun, however.

I'm also quite partial to the Majin series. Quite well done, serious period fantasy.

[_the narrator]

Bill Hamblin concurs in the comments, lashing out unhelpfully against "anonymous" and "apostate slander." To my knowledge, neither I nor Loyd are anonymous nor "apostates." My source is anonymous, of course, but not an "apostate."

Anyone assisting Mr. Dehlin in his work of destruction regarding NAMI is, as far as I'm concerned, while perhaps not an "apostate," in the normative sense, a "useful idiot" of a public, active apostate (in all but official removal of name) and critic of the Church qua Church who doesn't want his personal agenda and claimed beliefs to come under the disinfecting light of critical analysis.

I quite understand his fears in this regard, given what I've seen of his project thus far.

Two things should be clarified:

1. Dehlin, himself, has little to do with what is going on with the MI. And Smith's "hit-piece" has little significance, only in being one of the final of many straws that broke the camel's back. Because of the effect that they knew DCP's dismissal would have on donations, Bradford discussed this with BYU administration and did so with their full support. As I have said before, and as Bill Hamblin has confirmed (and has DCP proved himself a liar again in accusing me of lying), this was years in the making. The Dehlin piece was only a blip in a longer narrative.

2. While I like Dehlin personally, I am not fond of what Mormon Stories has become, care little for his approach, and personally do not support it. (I think Mormon Matters is a far better project.)

[_Droopy]

Two things should be clarified:

1. Dehlin, himself, has little to do with what is going on with the MI.

That's what I've been arguing all along, at least so far as Samuelson is concerned.

And Smith's "hit-piece" has little significance, only in being one of the final of many straws that broke the camel's back.

What straws, what camel, and who's?

Because of the effect that they knew DCP's dismissal would have on donations, Bradford discussed this with BYU administration and did so with their full support. As I have said before, and as Bill Hamblin has confirmed (and has DCP proved himself a liar again in accusing me of lying), this was years in the making. The Dehlin piece was only a blip in a longer narrative.

And now, I'll ask the same question yet again: what are your sources for these claims?

[_the narrator]

What straws, what camel, and who's?

Straws - frustrations with DCP's differing vision of the MI. Camel - the differing vision. Who's - Bradford and the MI.

And now, I'll ask the same question yet again: what are your sources for these claims?

Associates of the MI who are intimately aware of what happened. I'm not naming names so don't ask. I don't care whether or not you believe me. Just know that unlike DCP, I haven't been shown to be a repeated liar.